Naval combat

[Rage]

There should be more than 1 type of battleship u can build. It would add a lot to the naval side of things if you could could build different sizes of ships and have the ability to design them-like u could design units in SMAC. You would have to decide wether to sacrifice armour for speed or what size weapons u want on it etc.
Obviously the more firepower or bigger it is the more expensive it will be to make.
you guys hae an opinion on this?

[Libertarian]

That's not a bad idea. In fact, it could probably be more generalized. Maybe you should archive it in the discussion at the top.

[Rage]

thx i will!

[notyoueither]

Lib, leave to newbies alone. They'll fumble along quite nicely without your en/dis-couragement.

How's the new game goin?

Salve

[Rage]

ive been playing civ ever since it came out just because i havent posted much here doesnt make me a newbie

[Zachriel]

Naval could use revamping:

- Subs should be able to pick off transports in stacks (some of the time).
- Cruisers should be able to "see" subs.
- Battleships should be somewhat vulnerable to subs.
- Aircraft should be able to sink ships.
- Ships should be able to fire at attacking aircraft.
- Subs should be vulnerable to counterattack for one turn after their attack.
- Fast ships should be able attack then retreat like cavalry (this would help with the Frigate v. Battleship problem).

[Barnacle Bill]

Originally posted by Zachriel
Naval could use revamping:

- Subs should be able to pick off transports in stacks (some of the time).
- Cruisers should be able to "see" subs.
- Battleships should be somewhat vulnerable to subs.
- Aircraft should be able to sink ships.
- Ships should be able to fire at attacking aircraft.
- Subs should be vulnerable to counterattack for one turn after their attack.
- Fast ships should be able attack then retreat like cavalry (this would help with the Frigate v. Battleship problem).

I agree with some of this, but not all.
Bombardment should be able to sink ships.
Nothing should be able to "see" subs and attack them in its own turn except modern subs.
Submarine attacks should be treated as a form of bombardment (i.e. no damage to the sub is possible, only to the target).
Subs should be able to pick their target out of a stack.
There should be a seperate bombardment factor for use against against subs, which would be 0 except for ASW units so let's call it an ASW factor. When a sub attacks a ship/stack, there should be a chance (not a sure thing but a chance) for the best ASW escort (i.e. ship with a non-zero ASW factor) in the stack to detect the sub before it shoots. If an ASW escort detects the sub before it shoots, it would to get a first shot at the sub - similar to the way artillery stacked with the defender works in ground combat. Detection should be more likely against a WWII-type sub than a modern one (best model would be two new factors - one for ASW sensors and one for stealth, detection probability being a function of the ratio - and modern subs having the highest sensor factor and stealth factor). After the sub takes its shot, the best ASW ship in the stack would get another chance to detect the sub, this time a better one because the sub has revealed its presence by shooting, and get to bombard it if it detects it.
The bombardment factor and number of rounds of bombardment of a sub should be sufficient to take out even a battleship. However, a sub could be sunk before firing by an escorting destroyer, and if the sub survives a defensinve escort ASW bombardment but is reduced to 1 HP it should retreat without firing.
A modern sub would not be able to act as an escort for other ships, but would be able to detect & respond to attacks by other subs upon it.
There should be an AA factor which "bombards back" against bombarding aircraft, but it would be 0 for pre-modern units of course.
General air units should be unable to detect or bombard subs, but it would be OK if special ASW patrol aircraft with a sensor & ASW factor could be added.

[GePap]

exemplary

Naval combat is exemplary for what is wrong with the Civ3 combat system. This is a very old discussion that was already brutally discussed in Nov. and Dec. I think that a few more units, like a cruiser in the industrial age, war galleon in medieval (warship equivalent of Caravel) and merchant (a transport for ancient times, carry 2, make the trireme carry 1, the warship of the time) would generally give the game some needed depth. Also, treat the Aegis cruiser as a sort of floating SAM battery would really help.

[Rage]

an order where you could set ships to automatically intercept incoming ships or transports would be nice-instead of u having to do it yourself and sometimes missing them!

[Willem]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Lib, leave to newbies alone. They'll fumble along quite nicely without your en/dis-couragement.

How's the new game goin?

Salve

Well sometimes it's so easy, even I'm tempted.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Barnacle Bill
Nothing should be able to "see" subs and attack them in its own turn except modern subs.

Sure ships can "see" subs, at least as well as other subs, because they rely on sound, not sight. An exact position is not necessary for an attack on a sub. But certain ships were built specifically for the purpose of sounding out subs and destroying them.

Using bombardment to represent the sub attack could work. But all ship attacks (since the industrial age) are actually bombardment. By trying to represent all the complexity, it may become too burdensome to play.

The model has to be kept simple to make it playable in the game, but I'm sure there is more than one possible solution.

[Willem]

Re: exemplary

Originally posted by GePap
war galleon in medieval (warship equivalent of Caravel)

I like that idea but not the name you have for it. The later Galleons were sometimes re-fitted into warships as well. Does anyone know the name of an historical ship that fits with this idea? Easy enough to make one with Gramphos's utility.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Zachriel


Sure ships can "see" subs, at least as well as other subs, because they rely on sound, not sight. An exact position is not necessary for an attack on a sub. But certain ships were built specifically for the purpose of sounding out subs and destroying them.

Yes, a depth charge doesn't have to make direct contact with a sub in order to destroy it. It creates a shock wave which can fracture the hull and sink it.

[Zachriel]

They should try to extend the age of sail and cannon, too.

[Zachriel]

Re: Re: exemplary

Originally posted by Willem
I like that idea but not the name you have for it. The later Galleons were sometimes re-fitted into warships as well. Does anyone know the name of an historical ship that fits with this idea? Easy enough to make one with Gramphos's utility.

BRITANNICA: The name derived from 'galley,' which had come to be synonymous with “war vessel” and whose characteristic beaked prow the new ship retained.

If you mean a refitted merchant vessal, that would be John Paul Jones beating a British Frigate. Grappled it he did.